![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Gay Marriage debate, revisisted
Nov. 18th, 2003 08:18 pmCongratulations to Massachusetts on ruling in favour of same sex marriages! I'm going to be honest with you here, this same sex marriage debate seriously pisses me off. I'm know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm just going to go ahead and do it anyway.
There isn't a single argument against gay marriage that holds any water whatsoever, and I'm so tired of hearing all of them. If this is about religion, what do you say to religions who allow gay marriages and perform them? Sorry, mr. Unitarian Universalist minister, you can't perform that marriage. It's against the religious principles of our country. Exactly who's religion is being represented in that argument, and by what justification is that religion's ideals being foisted upon another?
In Canada, it was the United Church who performed the marriages that led to the Supreme court ruling. So what do you say to them? Their religious rights aren't as sacred as other people's? Those ideas don't belong to the ruling religion? Aren't we not supposed to have ruling religions over here? Since when do Catholics approve of Protestant marriages? Since when do Baptists agree that Mormons married to a whole village are sanctified in the eyes of God? Do you honestly believe that fundamentalist Christians believe that Buddhist marriages are on par with their own? Just as pure, sanctified, God-given? There is no one size fits all in marriage, there never has been. Every tradition, every faith has its own view. If I hear one more person make the religious argument to me I will laugh in their face.
I can't even sort of deal with the pseudo-liberal commentary from people who want to talk about 'civil unions' instead of marriage for gay people. Oh, the general public can't handle it, they're not ready for gay marriage!
Since when are human rights a matter of public opinion?
Yesterday my cataloguing prof talked about how critical classification actually is. It doesn't get much more political than the moment you chose a category for something. Is homosexuality a psychiatric disease, or not? if your mother is black, does that make you black too? Is the fetus a citizen, or not? Classification is critical to us, it's not a side issue. It's not good enough to look at the conseqences, it's not good enough to aim for good enough.
So now we want to talk about two separate catagories of relationships, just to keep some people happy: marriage for straight people, and civil unions for gay people. And what's the implication of that? When you say, oh sure, we're okay with homosexuals, but you leave homosexuality on the books as a psychiatric disease, what does that mean? What does that say about your motives? What does it say about your motives if you're not pushing for 'civil unions' for atheists, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims? That you respect their right to their beliefs, even if they're not yours. Their legal marriage, their right to use the term marriage, is not infringing on your health and well-being. But gay people?
We need civil unions, apparently, because gay people aren't good enough for marriage, that high and pure state that certain religious people seem to treasure above all others in spite of the evidence of it's multiple meanings in society. (Do we need to note that marriage is not a sacrament in the Protestant churches? Do we need to note that that's been true since the sixteenth century?) Oh sure, marriage is okay for heathens according to the nutty christians, but not for gay people. Because gay people are beyond the pale. Gay people need to be kept out of...what? Sight? Mind? Society? When you say all men are created equal, what do you really mean? 'Civil union' is an insult. Accepting 'civil union' is accepting that all this bullshit is true and okay.
It's not okay. Goddammit.
There isn't a single argument against gay marriage that holds any water whatsoever, and I'm so tired of hearing all of them. If this is about religion, what do you say to religions who allow gay marriages and perform them? Sorry, mr. Unitarian Universalist minister, you can't perform that marriage. It's against the religious principles of our country. Exactly who's religion is being represented in that argument, and by what justification is that religion's ideals being foisted upon another?
In Canada, it was the United Church who performed the marriages that led to the Supreme court ruling. So what do you say to them? Their religious rights aren't as sacred as other people's? Those ideas don't belong to the ruling religion? Aren't we not supposed to have ruling religions over here? Since when do Catholics approve of Protestant marriages? Since when do Baptists agree that Mormons married to a whole village are sanctified in the eyes of God? Do you honestly believe that fundamentalist Christians believe that Buddhist marriages are on par with their own? Just as pure, sanctified, God-given? There is no one size fits all in marriage, there never has been. Every tradition, every faith has its own view. If I hear one more person make the religious argument to me I will laugh in their face.
I can't even sort of deal with the pseudo-liberal commentary from people who want to talk about 'civil unions' instead of marriage for gay people. Oh, the general public can't handle it, they're not ready for gay marriage!
Since when are human rights a matter of public opinion?
Yesterday my cataloguing prof talked about how critical classification actually is. It doesn't get much more political than the moment you chose a category for something. Is homosexuality a psychiatric disease, or not? if your mother is black, does that make you black too? Is the fetus a citizen, or not? Classification is critical to us, it's not a side issue. It's not good enough to look at the conseqences, it's not good enough to aim for good enough.
So now we want to talk about two separate catagories of relationships, just to keep some people happy: marriage for straight people, and civil unions for gay people. And what's the implication of that? When you say, oh sure, we're okay with homosexuals, but you leave homosexuality on the books as a psychiatric disease, what does that mean? What does that say about your motives? What does it say about your motives if you're not pushing for 'civil unions' for atheists, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims? That you respect their right to their beliefs, even if they're not yours. Their legal marriage, their right to use the term marriage, is not infringing on your health and well-being. But gay people?
We need civil unions, apparently, because gay people aren't good enough for marriage, that high and pure state that certain religious people seem to treasure above all others in spite of the evidence of it's multiple meanings in society. (Do we need to note that marriage is not a sacrament in the Protestant churches? Do we need to note that that's been true since the sixteenth century?) Oh sure, marriage is okay for heathens according to the nutty christians, but not for gay people. Because gay people are beyond the pale. Gay people need to be kept out of...what? Sight? Mind? Society? When you say all men are created equal, what do you really mean? 'Civil union' is an insult. Accepting 'civil union' is accepting that all this bullshit is true and okay.
It's not okay. Goddammit.
